New human species identified from Kenya fossils

[Humes]

If you go right back to the Big Bang (which is where evolution started - not so?)

No.

Evolution didn't begin with the Big Bang.

You're talking rubbish. Go read and educate yourself.

Listen here big man: Did we not evolve from something? Did the earth not form itself? Before the earth formed itself, what was it? A collection of dust and rocks in space? Are these part of the primordial stew? Did the universe not start with a big bang according to scientists? Then if that is its origins, it is clear that everything had to evolve from there. Not so? And out of all the planets and galaxies, we are the only life forms to coincidentally form/evolve on one planet. Thus there is no need for God. Right?

Evolution is a biological process. It began after life appeared, not before. Therefore evolution would not have begun at the Big Bang before organic material had developed. Simple.

Earth is the only planet we've encountered life on. Besides Mars and our own Moon, we've yet to explore any other planets or moons in any thorough way, so it's much too early to state that there's no life elsewhere.

[Sky]

If you don't believe in creationism, please tell me about the beginning of evolution.
If you're gonna mention "big bang" don't even bother.

Where did you get the impression that I don't believe in creationism?

nah, that was a general question, directed to anyone who didn't believe in creationism.

Creationism: Something happened. But we don't know everything because there are many stories and claims as to what exactly happened. A lot of motives also affected these stories. People associated with this generally take what they're fed as long as it comforts them.

Evolution: Something happened. But we don't know everything because we haven't yet found enough to clearly figure out what exactly happened. People associated with this are always looking for the truth and trying to figure out what happened. And are hated by the above group because this disturbs their comfort.

[ShIvAm]

its always entertaining to read through cheds like these

shocks me to see how closed minded people can be

[pioneer]

Well according to religious folk, the only planet exists is earth. There's only one moon and sun.

When people decide to go exploring other planets and solar systems, they write songs about it saying man has lost his way and not believing in god.

Dinosaurs didn't happen also, there was no life before adam & eve. God created everything. Those fossils found were made up by devil worshipers.

[bluefete]

If you go right back to the Big Bang (which is where evolution started - not so?)

No.

Evolution didn't begin with the Big Bang.

You're talking rubbish. Go read and educate yourself.

Listen here big man: Did we not evolve from something? Did the earth not form itself? Before the earth formed itself, what was it? A collection of dust and rocks in space? Are these part of the primordial stew? Did the universe not start with a big bang according to scientists? Then if that is its origins, it is clear that everything had to evolve from there. Not so? And out of all the planets and galaxies, we are the only life forms to coincidentally form/evolve on one planet. Thus there is no need for God. Right?

Evolution is a biological process. It began after life appeared, not before. Therefore evolution would not have begun at the Big Bang before organic material had developed. Simple.

Earth is the only planet we've encountered life on. Besides Mars and our own Moon, we've yet to explore any other planets or moons in any thorough way, so it's much too early to state that there's no life elsewhere.

Evolution is a biological process that began with the big bang. Human life is a product of the stars (or so said the BBC in a documentary I saw some years ago). Thus it is simple to extrapolate that evolution began after life appeared but it really started when the seeds were sown with the big bang. Organic material also came from the stars.

I still find creationism easier to understand and believe.

[bluefete]

Well according to religious folk, the only planet exists is earth. There's only one moon and sun.

When people decide to go exploring other planets and solar systems, they write songs about it saying man has lost his way and not believing in god.

Dinosaurs didn't happen also, there was no life before adam & eve. God created everything. Those fossils found were made up by devil worshipers.

Dinosaurs and people co-existed - notwithstanding what scientists say. The proof will come one day.

[Sky]

^^ And maybe someday they'll discover a snake with a larynx who can convince people to eat fruit.
Know what? As it stands right now, both accounts for the beginning is total BS.
The difference is that while one group accepts their BS, the other questions theirs.

[pioneer]

But the good book doesn't mention dinosaurs?

[bluefete]

^^ What would be these obvious reasons?

Some things are too much for ordinary people to handle. Did you ever notice how scientists are preparing us to accept the existence of otherworldly beings?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ do you believe in "other worldly beings"?

also you seem fascinated with conspiracy theory, so much so that I think you think evolution is a conspiracy. Do you?

If you don't believe in creationism, please tell me about the beginning of evolution.
If you're gonna mention "big bang" don't even bother.

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences."

"Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents."

"Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life"."

"In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth."

[bluefete]

^^ And maybe someday they'll discover a snake with a larynx who can convince people to eat fruit.
Know what? As it stands right now, both accounts for the beginning is total BS.
The difference is that while one group accepts their BS, the other questions theirs.

And if you believe in evolution, that larynx would have long since disappeared!

[Humes]

Evolution is a biological process that began with the big bang. Human life is a product of the stars (or so said the BBC in a documentary I saw some years ago). Thus it is simple to extrapolate that evolution began after life appeared but it really started when the seeds were sown with the big bang. Organic material also came from the stars.

No, bluefete, you're just plain making things up now, on multiple levels. Which I guess shouldn't be a surprise.

It can't be extrapolated that evolution began before life began. Life needs to be present in some form for life to change.

Organic matter didn't come from the stars either. Basic building blocks combined in Earth's atmosphere to create the proteins, acids etc that eventually resulted in life...but they weren't organic to begin with. And they weren't alive. It wasn't evolution. It was chemical reactions.

How else yuh want tuh twist it now? How would Jesus twist it?

[Sky]

^^ What would be these obvious reasons?

Some things are too much for ordinary people to handle. Did you ever notice how scientists are preparing us to accept the existence of otherworldly beings?

Nope, they're entertaining the possibility. Same as they do with God.
Scientists found noah's ark, searched for the holy grail and the ark of the covenant, comb the east to find more biblical literature (which they did, and christians rejected it). They found out exactly where this major flood took place (protip: it was the black being flooded (created) by the med sea)
Oh btw, the same carbon dating that you don't believe in was used to prove that yes, that flood took place when the bible said it did. It's ok, you can believe in it just for that part.

Allyuh is kix yes.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^^ And maybe someday they'll discover a snake with a larynx who can convince people to eat fruit.
Know what? As it stands right now, both accounts for the beginning is total BS.
The difference is that while one group accepts their BS, the other questions theirs.

And if you believe in evolution, that larynx would have long since disappeared!

why?

evolution works to promote and advance a species, not to digress. Why would a snake with speech evolve back to one without? de-evolution?

I sense some de-evolution of brain cells in this thread!

[bluefete]

If you don't believe in creationism, please tell me about the beginning of evolution.
If you're gonna mention "big bang" don't even bother.

"Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences."

"Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents."

"Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life"."

"In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth."

But Duane - All you are doing here is proving the existence of God and validating creationism.

So life started by a spontaneous chemical reaction that produced all life as we know it now. Riiight!

Charles Darwin thought it foolish to have a discussion about the origin of life because it would have made his evolutionary theory of non-accord.

So what is the probability of life forming through a purely random process? Why is that not being replicated globally today?

[bluefete]

^^ And maybe someday they'll discover a snake with a larynx who can convince people to eat fruit.
Know what? As it stands right now, both accounts for the beginning is total BS.
The difference is that while one group accepts their BS, the other questions theirs.

And if you believe in evolution, that larynx would have long since disappeared!

why?

evolution works to promote and advance a species, not to digress. Why would a snake with speech evolve back to one without? de-evolution?

I sense some de-evolution of brain cells in this thread!

Well, let's see. Why would a monkey that cannot talk still cannot talk but its cousins (US??????) can? Maybe the monkeys used to talk before!! That is a hypothesis worth researching.

[Humes]

^^ And maybe someday they'll discover a snake with a larynx who can convince people to eat fruit.
Know what? As it stands right now, both accounts for the beginning is total BS.
The difference is that while one group accepts their BS, the other questions theirs.

And if you believe in evolution, that larynx would have long since disappeared!

why?

evolution works to promote and advance a species, not to digress. Why would a snake with speech evolve back to one without? de-evolution?

I was halfway through writing this exact same thing when I said frig it. Wasted keystrokes.

[Humes]

So what is the probability of life forming through a purely random process? Why is that not being replicated globally today?

Because Earth's atmosphere today is radically different from Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago. The conditions in which certain chemical reactions took place no longer exist. There's abundant oxygen in out air now, for example, and there wasn't back then.

Also, the earliest microscopic life thrived with no other competition. But our planet is teeming now with microscopic life to the point that new life would probably be eradicated before we even knows it exists.

As for the probability: A lot can happen if you give some chemicals and gases a few billion years, heat and pressure.

[Sky]

Hear nah bluefete. Gravity is a theory too. Find a window to jump out nah. Disprove it.

[bluefete]

Evolution is a biological process that began with the big bang. Human life is a product of the stars (or so said the BBC in a documentary I saw some years ago). Thus it is simple to extrapolate that evolution began after life appeared but it really started when the seeds were sown with the big bang. Organic material also came from the stars.

No, bluefete, you're just plain making things up now, on multiple levels. Which I guess shouldn't be a surprise.

It can't be extrapolated that evolution began before life began. Life needs to be present in some form for life to change.

Organic matter didn't come from the stars either. Basic building blocks combined in Earth's atmosphere to create the proteins, acids etc that eventually resulted in life...but they weren't organic to begin with. And they weren't alive. It wasn't evolution. It was chemical reactions.

How else yuh want tuh twist it now? How would Jesus twist it?

That is what the BBC documentary said!!

I will deal with the basic building blocks in Duane's post which I have to go back to about abiogenesis.

[bluefete]

"In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth."

When yuh posting yuh must post both sides!!!


In the 1950s, Stanley L. Miller performed the first experiment attempting to reproduce these conditions. Methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water were placed in a flask that was subject to an electrical discharge. After several days, the experiment yielded several organic compounds including amino acids. Other researchers repeated these experiments using different energy sources such as UV, and other presumed primitive atmospheres. When hydrogen cyanide was used, even nitrogenous bases were obtained, which are a component of the building blocks for DNA.

By passing electrical sparks through mixtures of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor, scientists produced several amino acids, the building blocks of organic life.

However, in all of these experiments that attempted to produce life's building blocks, molecular oxygen was absent. The earth possesses an oxygen rich atmosphere, and even the oldest rocks contain oxides, which is evidence that they were formed in the presence of oxygen. In fact, oxides have been found in rocks supposedly 300 million years older than the first living cells. Oxygen is produced by all photosynthetic organisms, and is required for metabolism by all life forms except a few microorganisms. A hydrogen-rich reducing atmosphere was used in these experiments only because amino acids and nitrogenous bases simply will not form spontaneously in an oxidizing environment.

Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through his simulated atmosphere, Miller saved the amino acids he produced only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them. Moreover, assuming the amino acids survived the destructive ultraviolet atmosphere of primitive earth and reached the ocean to form a theoretical "organic soup," further chemical reactions would not have been possible as bodies of water are not conducive to the necessary chemistry.

Another problem arises in relation to the amino acids that were theorized to have generated by chance. Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. Each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be "left-handed." Yet, while some amino acids are "left-handed," others are "right-handed." Should they be formed at random in a "organic soup," it is most likely that they would occur in roughly equal proportions. The question of how a specifically required combination of "left-handed" amino acids could unite by chance, while excluding "right-handed" amino acids, constitutes an impasse for abiogenesis.

Nevertheless, many evolutionists still believe that experiments like Miller's have shown that life could have begun by fortunate interactions in the early Earth.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the earth didnt always contain an oxygen rich atmosphere. Plant life accounts for the oxygen rich earth we have today.

that argument has other major holes such as assuming the chance of life spontaneously occurring is too high so therefore creation. That is not science.

Duane once explained in the other thread that very tall people are a product of cells gone awry.

ok firstly I didnt say that, I said that abnormalities in the pituitary gland results in an abnormally high level of human growth hormone THAT can make people very tall, or very short, large hands, small feet etc etc

The existence of giants was explained by the mating of fallen angels with human women. There were giants in ancient Israel and the stats were given for Goliath.

you claim evolution, that has tons of evidence, is not real but you are going with fallen angels mating with women to create giants. Right!

What stats were given?

Dinosaurs and people co-existed - notwithstanding what scientists say. The proof will come one day.

I can't see how

they have dug up millions of dinosaur bones around the world and haven't found a single human bone of the same age.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. That is negative proof!

[Humes]

^^ And maybe someday they'll discover a snake with a larynx who can convince people to eat fruit.
Know what? As it stands right now, both accounts for the beginning is total BS.
The difference is that while one group accepts their BS, the other questions theirs.

And if you believe in evolution, that larynx would have long since disappeared!

why?

evolution works to promote and advance a species, not to digress. Why would a snake with speech evolve back to one without? de-evolution?

I sense some de-evolution of brain cells in this thread!

Well, let's see. Why would a monkey that cannot talk still cannot talk but its cousins (US??????) can? Maybe the monkeys used to talk before!! That is a hypothesis worth researching.

Not really. The mutation that proves beneficial and is thus perpetuated in one species does not necessarily have to appear in other species. Or it doesn't necessarily have to prove beneficial enough to perpetuate.

Serious question, bluefete: You really this dumb, or you just trolling?

[Humes]

Yuh know, this isn't an argument between two sides presenting conflicting sets of facts.

This is a group of people struggling to explain basic terms and logic to someone who intentionally twists information and ignores facts.

[bluefete]

Duane once explained in the other thread that very tall people are a product of cells gone awry.

ok firstly I didnt say that, I said that abnormalities in the pituitary gland results in an abnormally high level of human growth hormone THAT can make people very tall, or very short, large hands, small feet etc etc

The existence of giants was explained by the mating of fallen angels with human women. There were giants in ancient Israel and the stats were given for Goliath.

you claim evolution, that has tons of evidence, is not real but you are going with fallen angels mating with women to create giants. Right!

What stats were given?

And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goli'ath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
5 And he had a helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.
6 And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders.
7 And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.

Dinosaurs and people co-existed - notwithstanding what scientists say. The proof will come one day.

I can't see how

they have dug up millions of dinosaur bones around the world and haven't found a single human bone of the same age. (AS YET!)

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. That is negative proof!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ ok we already have a religion thread - lets keep this topic scientific.
Besides scripture, what stats are there?

[Bizzare]

Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents."

What about the origin of the chemical substances involved in the chemical reaction?

[Humes]

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Evidence that wizards exist!

[pioneer]

Hear nah bluefete. Gravity is a theory too. Find a window to jump out nah. Disprove it.

LOL watch nah

[bluefete]

^^ And maybe someday they'll discover a snake with a larynx who can convince people to eat fruit.
Know what? As it stands right now, both accounts for the beginning is total BS.
The difference is that while one group accepts their BS, the other questions theirs.

And if you believe in evolution, that larynx would have long since disappeared!

why?

evolution works to promote and advance a species, not to digress. Why would a snake with speech evolve back to one without? de-evolution?

I sense some de-evolution of brain cells in this thread!

Well, let's see. Why would a monkey that cannot talk still cannot talk but its cousins (US??????) can? Maybe the monkeys used to talk before!! That is a hypothesis worth researching.

Not really. The mutation that proves beneficial and is thus perpetuated in one species does not necessarily have to appear in other species. Or it doesn't necessarily have to prove beneficial enough to perpetuate.

Serious question, bluefete: You really this dumb, or you just trolling?

Mutation is a positive thing when it results in an advanced creature. Did we not lose our tailbones (that helped us to swim) as part of our evolutionary development? Did it not make us poorer swimmers than our other family (cousins?) who remained in the sea.